Former Delta State Governor, Chief James Ibori, on Thursday, criticised the Supreme Court’s judgment granting financial autonomy to local government councils, calling it a severe setback to principles of federalism .
Reacting on his X handle, Ibori posted, “The Supreme Court has dealt a severe setback to the principle of federalism as defined by Section 162(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). This section expressly states that the Federation Account shall be distributed among Federal, State Governments, and Local Government Councils in each State as prescribed by the National Assembly.”
Ibori highlighted Section 6, which mandates states to maintain a ‘State Joint Local Government Account’ for all allocations to Local Government Councils from the Federation Account. He argued that the ruling undermines true federalism by allowing federal interference in local government administration, which should be limited to two tiers of government.
Ibori outlined several implications of the ruling:
Constitutional Interpretation: The ruling appears to contradict the explicit provisions of Section 162 of the Constitution, raising questions about judicial overreach.
Balance of Power: The ruling potentially centralises more power at the federal level, shifting the balance away from states.
State Autonomy: This decision could erode state autonomy, affecting their control over local government administration.
Financial Independence: Federal intervention in local government finances may undermine the financial independence of states and local governments.
Precedent Setting: The decision could set a precedent for further federal interventions in state affairs, leading to a more centralised government system.
Ibori acknowledged the need for democratically elected local governments but argued that withholding allocations is not the solution. He emphasized that direct federal payment to local governments could lead to chaos and friction in governance.
He concluded with a hope for a review of the judgment, quoting Justice Oputa, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final,” and stressed that the ruling turns the concept of federalism on its head.
